To Maggie Mayhem and anyone else who keeps rehashing the same old copyright arguments: There are many precedents to working with Street View - This book isn't the first and won't be the last. Whether it's right or wrong isn't for you or me to decide.

Re: Identity - To protect themselves from legal challenges regarding data protection, Google developed an algorithm that blurs out faces so people can't be identified. Stop, look and think for a minute and you might notice that faces are blurred throughout the book and identities are concealed.

As far as 'profiting' from the representation of women goes, believe it or not, making artists' book doesn't generally attract capitalists. It's not really something people get into to make money. But I guess we're not allowed to talk about art here so let's move on.

Finally, I've been careful to suggest the possibility that given the research underpinning this work, these women appear to be sex workers working in isolated, liminal spaces in certain parts of Europe (not hookers or whores as so many of you here seem to revel in calling them). If you stopped to think about the content of this work for one second instead of spitting venom about your skewed understanding of my intentions, you might think about the bigger social issues touched on by this work and hell, you might even gain insight into a world beyond America.

This is the last thing I'll say on the subject here - I'm starting to repeat myself. I guess that's what happens when diversity of opinion is denied.

Freedom of expression is not the same thing as stealing images from someone else, using models without their consent, and slapping a label on them without doing any research whatsoever. It's a lazy and exploitative project, full stop. It relies on the trope that the bodies of women are something to be mined by others with impunity. It is not expression, it is theft.

Furry Girl is under no obligation to post anyone's comments. Crying foul on that is akin to walking into a bookshop and demanding that they carry your book because you wrote it. It's a childish idea born out of a sense of contrived entitlement.

Mishka: you have neither the right to use the work of others for your own profit nor the right to promote yourself on a platform that someone else built from the ground up.

It's my fucking blog, people.

I don't have an obligation to continue publishing off-topic comments that have NOTHING to do with the original topic. I let that go on long enough. I'd also shut down the distraction if people tried to make the conversation about, "What does the color green REALLY look like?" or "What if we're actually living in the Matrix and none of this is really happening?" It's bullshit navel-gazing that goes nowhere and ignores the topic at hand: the exploitation and misrepresentation of sex workers and other women for the profit and amusement of outsiders.

I love debate and discussion, but nothing bores me to tears like the idea of spending the next week jousting with random internet users about what "art" means, or if this collection of photos counts as art, because neither of those issues matter in the least.

My comment "policy," for all you new readers from Gizmodo and Jezebel: I engage in very little moderation, but I don't approve comments that are call me an ugly whore or whatnot, and trolls who refuse to stay on topic. I can and do exercise my right refuse to engage in pointless conversations with people with poor reading comprehension skills and/or wanting to debate in the "true" meanings of abstractions like "art," "creation," or "exploitation." If my comment policy bothers you, go start your own blog and see if anyone cares to read it. The internet's attention economy is an amazing meritocracy!